The bill in question, S.169, would mandate a 24-hour waiting period before most handgun purchases. It cleared the legislature last May but was vetoed in June by Republican Gov. Phil Scott.
Since then, legislative leaders have struggled to decide whether to compromise with the governor or attempt to override his veto, which would require a two-thirds vote in both chambers. While the measure met that threshold last year in the Senate, it fell short in the House on a vote of 82 to 58.
On Thursday, senators sought to convince their colleagues — and perhaps the governor — that the bill could, in fact, save lives. They invited professors Deepak Malhotra and Michael Luca to present their research showing that waiting periods cut the homicide rate by 17 percent and the suicide rate by 7 to 11 percent.
“If this policy passes, if the objective is to reduce gun deaths, that would be something you could very much expect,” Malhotra told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Health and Welfare Committee.
The professors reached their conclusions after analyzing the outcomes of various state-based waiting periods over a 45-year span and studying the impact of a national waiting period in effect from 1994 to 1998. They determined that, throughout the country, waiting periods could prevent 900 homicides and 950 suicides a year.
Such measures, Malhotra conceded, were “not a magic wand,” noting that 90 percent of suicides would still take place. “But every one of those deaths has an impact on the family, the community, the entire state,” he said.
Less clear from their research, the professors acknowledged, was whether the length of a waiting period made it more or less effective. They were not able to study the efficacy of a 24-hour waiting period because no state has enacted such a limited measure.
Scott cited that paucity of applicable data last year in explaining his veto to reporters. “There are no comparisons to a 24-hour waiting period on handguns alone,” he said at a press conference. “There are no-apples-to-apples comparisons.”
The governor hasn’t, apparently, changed his mind since. According to spokesperson Rebecca Kelley, Scott “stands by this decision” and believes that “the best way to build upon the work we’ve done to reduce gun violence and suicide is to focus on the root causes.” She cited proposals from his budget address earlier this week that would increase funding for suicide prevention and early intervention programs.
“If the Senate disagrees, they have the ability to override the governor’s veto,” Kelley said.
Whether the Senate will attempt to do so remained unclear after the professors delivered their testimony. During a brief discussion about what to do next, members of the Judiciary Committee complained that the administration had not made clear what the governor would support and what he wouldn’t.
“It’s hard to make that decision without actually hearing from them,” said Sen. Dick Sears (D-Bennington), who chairs the committee.
One option, Sears suggested, would be to increase the duration of the waiting period — something the senator has previously opposed. Another would be to strip out that portion of the bill and pass a more limited measure. Its other provisions include closing the so-called “Charleston loophole” by requiring background checks to be completed prior to a sale and allowing medical professionals to request “extreme risk protection orders” against those they deem a risk to public safety.
That’s the preferred approach of Bill Moore, a firearms policy analyst for the Vermont Traditions Coalition, which supports gun rights. “There’s consensus on all of the other elements,” he said. “So we would strongly urge both [chambers] to go ahead and just take out the waiting period — have that debate on another platform.”
Senate President Pro Tempore Tim Ashe (D/P-Chittenden) said he believes the Senate “should do anything we can to get a waiting period passed into law to save lives.” But, he added, “We’re also realistic. There are three partners in this, and hopefully the research helps people make a better decision.”
Disclosure: Tim Ashe is the domestic partner of Seven Days publisher and coeditor Paula Routly. Find our conflict-of-interest policy here: sevendaysvt.com/disclosure.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
So we’re going to revisit the gun bill, the minimum wage bill, the paid family leave bill, and the medical monitoring chemical bill.
I’m betting this has more to do with overriding the governor’s vetoes for political points than the substance of each bill..
More wasted time, energy and money at the state house. How about some bills that cut programs, costs, staffing. Less is more, especially where government is concerned.
If Scott would want to address financial issues of the oversized State government and over taxed VT taxpayers, he could appoint a high powered task force to seek solutions.
Charge this task force with increasing State revenue without tax or fee increases. Reduce expenses wherever possible, perhaps making investments into technology that pay off in short order. Increase/improve State government efficiency, especially in service sectors. Review taxes and fees in a matter of passing fairness and “snicker” tests.
Utilize the powerhouse of smart VT business and finance leaders. Try to avoid use of legislators. Input from Harvard is not necessarily needed.
It seems simple to me. Everyone wants to have their cause to be taken up under the Dome. Most causes require funding. Even playing the shell game is a nonstarter. Folks, VT State finances are in shambles and frankly, a disgrace. If strides can be made to improve this situation, then new or changed legislation can and should be addressed. Until then, ya gotta be able to pay if you want to play.
“How about some bills that cut programs, costs, staffing.” How about it? Let’s hear your proposals. It’s a lot easier to call for cuts in the abstract than to tell us WHAT you want to cut and why.
“ It’s a lot easier to call for cuts in the abstract than to tell us WHAT you want to cut and why “
Well the Governor has made it pretty clear what cuts and spending initiatives he would like to make, and I’ll use the student to staff ratio debate of a few years ago which the house speaker and the senate pro tem stopped in its tracks.
So the proposals are out there, and have been out there out for some time now, but you can’t a lead a horse to water as the saying goes.
When you consider all the fiscal challenges facing the state, and then think about the challenges in our prison system, Department of Children’s & Families and the crushing pension obligations the legislature continues to ignore and kick down the road, it is outrageous that the Democratic party is more interested in promoting the national party agenda on gun control, in the safest state in the nation.
We need some adults in Montpelier who have our priorities straight, and it isn’t in gun control.
I wish I could say it is unbelievable, but this is the kind of garbage we’ve come to expect from liberals.
Now let me see if I understand…if folks take a pause before they buy a gun there will be fewer anger impulse shootings…from newly purchased guns. Lord! How can you argue with that…Makes perfect sense. Right? And now the science guys from up on the “research pantheon” have graced us with “empirical evidence” in case we didn’t see the obvious. Well, I guess that settles it. Let’s make a law to REQUIRE EVERYONE buying a gun to take such an anger impulse pause. Why not? No sacrifice if too much if one life is saved… etc. After all, we’ve acquiesced in the face of the continuing barrage of “protective” laws and regulations. Obstructing the 2ndA is not really that big a thing. Right? Silly us…archaic thinking that we might need to be sufficiently armed to stop a potentially intrusive government. This impulse pause idea may have some legs in other arenas. Let think about this. We know testosterone driven outbursts are probably a source of many problems…deaths even. We could get our “scientists” to prove it and then ask our legislator to consider protecting us from this danger? Some sort of restrictive cuff perhaps?
“archaic thinking that we might need to be sufficiently armed to stop a potentially intrusive government”
We do not have fighter jets, tanks, heavy weaponry, etc.
We have, through the representatives that we have elected, built up our military to a level that it is, for all practical purposes, impossible to be sufficiently armed against the government.
I understand the historical foundation of this argument, but, without members of the military defecting and bringing their weapons with them, which I am not advocating for, even a large body of armed American citizens doesn’t have the weaponry to stop a “potentially intrusive government”.
That’s why we won in Afghanistan in a few days. Wait, we’re in the second decade?
Doesn’t that argument only solidify the need to nullify laws that impede on the second? At the time of it’s drafting, the civilian had the same weapons as the regulars. Merchant ships had crew serviced cannon.
Repeal the NFA.
A study published in 2012 found no measurable statistical effect on gun violence following the implementation of waiting period laws. A study published in 2000 in the JAMA found no change in homicide rates subsequent to the implementation of waiting periods for firearm purchases. The study indicated that these policies may be associated with a small reduction in the rate of gun suicide for those 55 and older, but there was no association with any reduction in the rate of suicide overall. A 2003 report from the Center for Disease Control found insufficient evidence for any determination that waiting periods have any effect on firearm fatalities. Of the research that has been done, the vast majority is in agreement that there is no evidence that these policies have caused any decrease in firearm-related deaths where they have been implemented.
In contrast to the broad body of research, one oft-cited 2017 study published by the National Academy of Sciences claims that waiting period laws applied exclusively to handguns caused a 17 percent reduction in gun homicide and a 7-11 percent reduction in gun suicides. In peer review it has been noted that this study failed to account for relevant variables, relied upon statistical comparisons among states geographically rather than within states temporally to determine effect, and measured change cumulatively over long periods of time rather than running analysis looking for the “statistical cliff” that should be evident upon the implementation of a policy whose full effect would become apparent within the length of the waiting period itself. In a CNN article from October 2017, co-author of the study, Deepak Malhotra, minimized the suicide claim when he stated that there was evidence to, “suggest that suicides also are reduced, but further research might be necessary on that issue. “
First, there is no way a waiting period reduces homicide rates by 17%. Otherwise every fifth person buying a gun would be going out and killing someone. Second, The second amendment says “shall not be infringed” not will only be infringed for a day. Third, there is about 627,000 people in Vermont and about 4,000 guard members and 1,100 police and/or the United States has a population of 329,00,000 and a standing military of 1,300,000 so for Vermont that would be 156 people per soldier and the United States as a whole it would be 253 people per soldier so yes I believe that citizens could usurp a corrupt government even with them having the jets and tanks (Sorry Ethan Rogati your argument doesn’t hold water). Fourth, Justice Scalia in 2008 Washington DC vs. Heller in the Opinion of the Court (findings) common use of the time were protected. Just about every country in the world issues a select fire rifle with a 30 round magazine to its infantry soldiers (Guess what the Second Amendment protects). Finally how has noone made it a law to report failed background checks? The only mass shooting in this state would have been prevented if the two times she failed background checks it was reported. Since it was not reported she stole a rifle and killed people. Waiting period = worthless, Reporting failed background checks would work.
I believe that there is a simple solution to the arms purchase waiting period issue. If someone has a legitimate reason to forego the waiting period, have them get a cosigner on the purchase, with the cosigner meeting all vetting comparable to that of the purchaser and being informed that they would be face conspiracy or accessory charges to whatever crime might be perpetrated with the weapon. The timeframe and severity of this liability can be something for the legislators and Governor to work out, but the bottom line is that people with a valid need for a same day purchase should certainly be able to find someone in agreement. The major concern is trying to curb the impulsive use of a firearm. Besides reducing the tragedies from the rash purchase and use of firearms, the act of reaching out to another person exposes a possible bad actor to a friend or family member who might be able to get the potential buyer some help or alert authorities.
Ok John Greenburg. First we ditch vehicle inspections. No data to suggest that this process makes our roads safer than states without this; of which there are many. The governing body that watches over this, goodbye. The team that developed and maintains the new computer system for inspections, no longer needed. Our legislators (I know one well) brings home $1200 a week, after taxes for their role. Much of it being travel expenses, meals, hotel rooms, that they never use: CUT. Maybe meet every other year, like NH. Now they are proposing a bill in which they get paid YEAR ROUND. No. Our board of Education, slice. Stop ridiculous initiatives that cost taxpayers millions and so far, have lowered student performance. See “Proficiency based learning”. The list goes on and on and on…..
Let’s dig into these numbers a bit. The study purports the homicide rate would be cut by 17% with a 24-hour waiting period.
Information for 2018 I found in a VPR report (http://projects.vpr.org/gunshots-vermont-g…) indicates that 12 homicides involved a firearm of any kind. 17% of 12 equates to roughly 2 homicides in 2018 in which a firearm was used.
I haven’t accounted for homicide by law enforcement, or homicide with other than a handgun (which would reduce the number even further).
Is there any empirical evidence anywhere that suggests that up to 2 newly-purchased handguns are used to take a life? The 17% value put forward by these experts represents data that are gleaned from NATIONAL figures that represent a large population. With an actual sample size of only 12, such calculated values are essentially worthless. The margin of error alone is greater than 2.
I don’t for an instant belittle the pain and anguish inflicted on the friends and family of these murder victims. That is very real. In a perfect world, there would be no murder, ever. But there is. Yet our legislators are are using up valuable time that could be spent solving far more significant societal issues that affect exponentially more than 2 people in all of VT. Evidence suggests that VT is nearing a tipping point in terms of demographics, cost of services, and over-taxation. We must focus on the many, not the 2. (And I know that sounds heartless)
In my opinion, based on reported facts, our representatives should spend the bulk of their time on important issues that affect 650,000 people rather than political issues representing *perhaps* 2 people.
Thanks to those who took the time to respond to my question. However, some pushback is necessary.
“Well the Governor has made it pretty clear what cuts and spending initiatives he would like to make.” Sorry, but he’s been anything but clear. “Clear” would be a proposed piece of legislation, a draft bill. Not “clear” is ongoing verbiage about things either he can’t change or has no specific proposal to change.
The specific example of student to staff is, in fact, an excellent case in point. Unless you’re suggesting a mandate from the State that the ratio be no lower than x, which Scott certainly has NOT proposed and would not support, then we’re talking about spending which is controlled at the local level; in other words, spending a governor can do nothing about other than use his bully pulpit and try to jawbone local boards
***********.
The only other specific proposal is to eliminate vehicle inspections. Even if we assume this is a great idea (which frankly, I strongly doubt), the savings to the State would surely be a fraction of 1% of the cost of state government and do absolutely nothing to cut state budgets. In fact, it might very well have the opposite effect, since all the money paid for inspections in the private sector is taxable income, which produces income tax revenue to the state.
********
I won’t repeat my previous comment, but it remains pertinent. Specific cuts?
Replies to Donald Davis’s first 3 arguments:
1) “Otherwise every fifth person buying a gun would be going out and killing someone.” Nope. Every fifth person who DOES kill someone would no longer be doing so. If, say, a million people buy guns and 5 of them use the guns to kill someone, the figure means that 1 of the 5 would no longer do so.
2) “The second amendment says “shall not be infringed”….” But the same Heller decision written by Scalia that Davis quotes approvingly says “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
3) This absurd argument about protecting citizens FROM the government is precisely backwards.
It ignores the initial words of the2nd amendment: “A well regulated Militia ….” The Constitution also uses the term “militia” in article I, Section 8, where it gives Congress the power “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” The Heller court states: “we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assumption that “militia” means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment.” (p.23)
So the Constitution gives the militia 3 roles, none of which has anything to do with securing freedom from an abusive government. Indeed, one of them is precisely the opposite: namely, to “suppress Insurrections.” Around the time the Constitution was drafted (and still), insurrections (e.g. Shay’s rebellion) were based on the claim that the government was “tyrannical.” The Constitution explicitly calls on the militia to suppress such insurrections, and it certainly provides no basis for arming insurgents.
Reply to JohnGreenberg
1: The only mass shooting in Vermont had to do with a woman who failed 2 separate background checks and then stole a rifle and killed the people. So I guess that 1 in 5 still used a gun. So once again that 17% is a number that has no proof it would actually happen and almost every article out there trying to support their opinion use the same information as in this article. That does not make it true.
2: Here is the rest of what is said after unlimited since you seem to have left it out. Wonder why? Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time”
3:The militia, long a staple of republican thought, loomed large in the deliberations of the Framers, many of whom were troubled by the prospect of a standing army in times of peace. For the Founders, a militia, composed of a “people numerous and armed,” was the ultimate guardian of liberty. It was a means to enable citizens not only to protect themselves against their fellows but also, particularly for the Anti-Federalists, to protect themselves from an oppressive government.
Thanks John Greenberg for the response.
The specific example of student to staff is, in fact, an excellent case in point. Unless you’re suggesting a mandate from the State that the ratio be no lower than x, which Scott certainly has NOT proposed and would not support,
Gov. Phil Scott is determined to find ways to reduce Vermont school costs, and on Tuesday his administration rolled out a proposal to pressure schools to reduce staff. As drafted by the Agency of Education, the proposal would penalize school districts if their student-to-staff ratio is lower than 5.5 students for every one staff member, or some other target ratio
https://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/…
Exactly how many documented cases of handgun suicides have occurred in VT in the last 10 years where the deceased purchased their handgun within 24 hours of their shooting themselves?
I suspect the answer is very few, if any.
This is another example of a solution looking for a problem. I have never heard a verified number of suicide deaths that warrant more restrictions on Vermonters. People want to live free. Our legislature does not seem to believe it or understand it.
Responding to Sarle’s comment:
According to the VT Dept of Health and the VPR Gunshots series, there were 1,308 suicides in Vermont from 2005-2018. The number of reported cases wherein the method of suicide was a firearm purchased within three days of the event was two. In both cases, suicidal behavior had been ongoing for an extended period and it is doubtful that a waiting period would have ultimately stopped them. Still, that amounts to 0.15 of one percent of the suicides committed in Vermont during that period, meaning that a waiting period in Vermont could not possibly have any effect on 99.85% of suicides.
The Vermont senate seeks to be placed under arrest by a lawful militia of the People, for contempt of their oath of office.
You can’t legislate against stupidity.
Donald Davis, thank you for your replies.
1) Your first point totally misrepresents the study you’re trying to rebut. The study, which was based on “the country,” not just Vermont, reached conclusions about homicides and suicides, NOT specifically mass killings.
Instead of responding to its findings which are based on “analyzing the outcomes of various state-based waiting periods over a 45-year span and studying the impact of a national waiting period in effect from 1994 to 1998,” you’ve completely changed the subject.
Finally, without doing additional research, I’m quite certain that there actually are other studies, which may differ slightly on the statistics reached, but which also conclude that waiting periods would save lives. THAT is the question we’re discussing here.
2) I didn’t continue the Heller quote because the remainder just adds specific examples to the generalization I quoted, and because comments are space limited. But in any case, the additional material you quote bolsters my argument, not yours.
3) Other than some gratuitous assertions about “republican thought” and “the deliberations of the Framers,” your answer fails to address the text of the Constitution (which is, after all, what we’re trying to interpret).. As I showed previously, it not only does NOT support your specious idea of militias “to protect themselves from an oppressive government,” it explicitly and specifically contradicts it. One of the 3 purposes of the militia, as explained by the Constitution is to “suppress insurrections.” Explain the text of the Constitution and I’m all ears.
“Forestgimp,” thanks for your reply.
The governor made a big issue of student to staff ratios in his first year in office, but introduced no bills.
Assuming that this proposal is in the form of a bill — which from the article you link to, does NOT appear to be the case — then, if passed, it MIGHT effect spending a year from now. It would have NO impact on spending last year or this.
But, as the article you quoted notes, it won’t pass: “Lawmakers on the House Education Committee responded with skepticism to the administration’s idea on Tuesday … “It is highly unlikely that the Senate would vote for a mandatory arbitrary number,” Ashe, D/P-Chittenden, said of the ratio proposal.”
So my point remains. What the governor has finally proposed — a year after running on a platform of cutting spending and then taking office — is a proposal, not yet in legislative language, which has essentially zero chance of passing and whose effects on the state budget, in any case, are unclear but surely not large.
If cutting state spending were my first and highest priority, then I would support candidates who proposed specific plans that might actually get legislative approval and which would clearly do the job. This proposal doesn’t even get into the ballpark of meeting either of these criteria
But personally, I believe that there are MANY other issues which require attention, and some of them will require increased spending. So my own priority is to make sure that government runs as efficiently as possible while still meeting the myriad needs our society as imposed on it. So cutting spending is NOT my first or highest priority.
The construction of the waiting period study cannot reveal a thing about what they mean to study – yet it claims that waiting period laws definitively decrease homicide rates by 17%! The effects of a waiting period law do not unfold over time – they are fully realized within the length of the waiting period itself. If a 2-day waiting period really decreased homicide rates by 17%, the effect of that would be fully and entirely apparent in 2 days following the enactment of the law. It wouldn’t be a change in rate trajectory and it wouldn’t be a change in rate over time; each of those would have to be attributable to other causes. If the waiting period caused the change, it would literally be that homicide rates would be 17% lower on Wednesday than they were on Monday, and they would stay there. That is a statistical cliff, and that is what these studies need to look for. Comparing and contrasting the homicide and suicide rates of many different states against one another over a period of 45 years (which the study proudly proclaims it does) literally cannot tell you a thing about the efficacy of waiting periods. The entire study is bunk. If you wanted to look for a possible effect of waiting periods, you would look within the states that enacted them for that statistical cliff at the time of enactment.
Skyler Bailey’s conclusion — “meaning that a waiting period in Vermont could not possibly have any effect on 99.85% of suicides” — doesn’t follow from his statistics.
In order to reach that step, you’d have to prove at least 2 additional points. First, that your sample was actually representative, and not skewed for some reason. Because Vermont’s population is small, the number is relatively small and over a large number of years. What other factors might have influenced these numbers during these years? Scientific studies are, or at least purport to be randomized, precisely so that legitimate inferences can be drawn from them. This sample is not at all random.
Second, you’d want to look for effects that might not be readily apparent: for example, how many suicides were there four days later? Might a day of waiting have made a difference?
At best, his numbers show that only a small number of suicides occurred withing the waiting period, which certainly does lend credibility to the notion that waiting periods would save only a relatively small number of lives. But that point was never contested by waiting period proponents.
Their point, with which I agree, is that ANY life saved is worth more than the small inconvenience of a waiting period.
These Harvard Business School suits have no skin in the game at all. Aren’t even from this state. But what if the BS they are spewing as gospel, designed & contrived to put impositions and restrictions on tens of thousands of other people through oppressive legislation, doesn’t pan out? What is their punishment? Do they lose their jobs, do they go to prison themselves for a couple years, are they fined a million dollars and have to make reparations to everyone they caused problems for? No, there is no downside at all for them coming and setting up this State requested Bully Pulpit.
Have these seditious legislators gone to any trouble at all to get testimony from anyone at all with a contrary opinion? No, they haven’t, in fact they’ve actively blocked anything that doesn’t support their agenda.
Maybe it’s time to bring back Tarring & Feathering.
Thanks again for the response, I miss debating with people on Vtdigger, but thats apparently not allowed anymore.
Your correct in saying that the governors proposal on staff to student never made it into a bill. But its important to remember that writing bills is NOT the governors job. When a legislator writes a bill, it, the pro-tem or speaker of the house assigns that bill to the appropriate committee where it eventually moves to another committee and head towards a vote, or stays where it is and dies a slow death.
But again, the ideas are out there, and have been for a while whether its student ratios, cutting Social security taxes for all Vermonters, or eliminating corporate taxes for businesses in the climate economy – which the governor also proposed.
Whether any of the governors ideas gets put into a bill by a legislator, and passes thru the various committees is another story.
John Greenburg: Even you must admit this “small inconvenience,” is a technical obstacle placed in the path of exercising a constitutional right. How “small” and whether any life is saved is an improper shift of focus to one based on emotion.
The 16th Article of Vermont’s Constitution is explicit. Every citizen has the right to bear arms for the purpose of self defense. Handguns are the most commonly used device for practicing that right. Your shift continues a dangerous trend: that all potential encroachments on constitutional rights should be based on the political winds of emotion. This is troubling.
For instance, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have a constitutional right to free speech. There are those on each side of the aisle who argue the opposite’s tweets are inciting violence. (Whose are worse or more frequent is irrelevant.) If researchers found violence less likely with a waiting period, are we then justified in placing a 24 hour obstacle between draft and publication?
All of us have a constitutional right to privacy. I support a woman’s right to choose whether to have an abortion as an exercise of that right. Yet we know almost 100% of abortions terminate a fetal life. (Measure that to the comparatively small and speculative numbers proponents of S.169 are using.) Abortion opponents also claim that a waiting period is just a “small inconvenience” that may save a life. The only difference with S.169 is the subject matter.
No constitutional right is safe if the measuring stick by which we examine potential encroachments is the emotional one you argue we should adopt here. That may not be politically popular at the moment, but it’s the only way our constitutional rights will be preserved.
Reply to JohnGreenberg:
1) Where did they compute where someone saved themselves from an abusive spouse because they had a gun to defend themselves. Where did they compute people killed by people trying to commit suicide in other forms that they lived though but killed other people in the process like driving the wrong way on the interstate. How can they know that 17% of those people would not have commited murder? I know a lot of people that have the “it isn’t my fault” or the “if they had done this” complex but it was still them.
2) Guess you didn’t read his whole comment in Heller. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition. Common weapons across the world right now are select fire rifles with 30 round magazines. Yes 30 round magazine are part of the weapon system.
3)James Madison originally proposed the Second Amendment shortly after the Constitution was officially ratified as a way to provide more power to state militias, which today are considered the National Guard. It was deemed a compromise between Federalists — those who supported the Constitution as it was ratified — and the anti-Federalists — those who supported states having more power. Having just used guns and other arms to ward off the English, the amendment was originally created to give citizens the opportunity to fight back against a tyrannical federal government.
Mr Greenberg says..”is that ANY life saved is worth more than the small inconvenience.. “.
Is this the “Trolley Problem”?
At face value I agree with the waiting period but using the “to save one life” defense is weak. Really?
By that rational you would agree and support Mr Rodgers silly cell phone ban.
Senator Benning, Thanks for taking the time to respond.
You were right to base your argument on the Vermont Constitution, rather than the 2nd Amendment. My understanding of court precedents tells me that the claim that waiting periods violate the 2nd amendment would not be upheld. With no Vermont precedent on the question, my guess is that Vermont courts, considering Article 16 would adopt reasoning similar to that I cited previously from the Heller decision: no right is unlimited.
Much depends on how the law is written. A Vermont law which fails to make any allowance for self-defense during a waiting period might very well fail court scrutiny. But since such specific cases are rare, my guess is that courts would uphold a waiting period law which allowed for emergency self-defense. The only sure way to find out is to pass the law, have it challenged, and see what the courts do with it.
Neither of your 2 supposed analogies holds much water. Courts regularly determine that bans on speech inciting to violence, for one example, does NOT violate the 1st amendment.
Roe rehearses millennia of philosophical and theological debate over the beginning of life to then conclude that the state has a legitimate interest in fetal life only after viability. Anti-choice activists disagree. We live in a pluralistic society where such decisions belong to individuals NOT politicians. A government decision to countermand any citizen’s view of when life begins violates the freedom of religion clause in the 1st Amendment. It effectively establishes anti-abortion religions.
Finally, there are multiple studies, not mere emotion, suggesting that gun waiting periods actually DO save lives, but no such evidence concerning abortions: abortion waiting periods are merely inconveniences with no countervailing benefit.
” Forestgimp.” I too miss VT Digger debates. I think Digger management made a serious error in deciding to prohibit them, and told them so quite clearly.
Governors propose legislation all the time. It’s part of the job, whence the saying “the governor proposes and the legislature disposes” which “has been cited in print since at least 1892.” tinyurl.com/tt4rtvp
My larger point is this. If the governor or his supporters are really serious about cutting government spending, they’ll introduce specific bills to accomplish that. Failure to do so places the onus on someone else. In the absence of such bills, talking about cutting spending is really just convenient rhetoric which serves no purpose other than to lambast those of us who seek real solutions to real problems and realize we’re going to have to pay for them.
No one LIKES to pay taxes; that’s WHY they’re mandatory. But realistic citizens and politicians realize that government is the best way to develop and maintain common infrastructure (roads, schools, courts, police) and that governments cannot rely on voluntary contributions for funding.
Similarly, everyone is in favor of spending less, until it’s THEIR program. Then there’s hell to pay.
I wish I believed that there were vast pots of government waste just waiting to be discovered, but it would be nice to believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy too.
That means that any proposed spending cuts are going to gore someone’s ox, and those who are pushing them ought to tell us whose.
Donald Davis:
1) I wish I understood what you’re talking about here, but I don’t. You appear to be asking HOW the study referred to in the article determined that there would be 17% fewer deaths from homicide, for example.
The simplest answer to your question is that the authors did a statistical analysis based on comparing periods and places that DID have waiting periods to similar periods and places that did not. Here’s how they put it: “We construct a panel of every change to waiting period laws in the United States between 1970 and 2014…. We combine these changes with annual data on firearm-related deaths from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention…. Overall, 44 states (including the District of Columbia) have had a waiting period for at least some time between 1970 and 2014. … Essentially, we compare changes in firearm-related deaths within states that adopted waiting periods with changes in firearm-related deaths in other states.” http://www.pnas.org/content/114/46/12162
2) You continue either to miss the point, or evade it: the issue we’re discussing is waiting periods, not magazines or weapon types.
3) The British government was not elected by American colonists, which eventually led them to consider it tyrannical (“Taxation without representation” etc.).
Governments under the US constitution ARE elected by American citizens and are therefore not thought of as tyrannical, which is WHY the Constitution allows for militias to “suppress insurrections.” The language of the text is perfectly clear, however much you try to evade it.
“BTV reader” suggests that my comment that somehow raises the trolley problem, which establishes a choice between allowing a trolley to kill 5 people, or allowing it to kill one. But the choice I presented is between allowing one or more people to die, on the one hand, and inconveniencing some buyers on the other.
In responding to Senator Benning’s reply to my comment, I acknowledged that it might be necessary to make a provision in a waiting period law for what I will call “emergency self defense.” In doing so, I am acknowledging the POSSIBILITY that enacting a waiting period COULD endanger someone who needed a weapon for self-defense during the waiting period and would have no alternative access to one. If that possibility were to actually materialize, we would be facing the trolley problem.
But establishing that possibility first requires acknowledgement that the only way someone would have to defend themselves during a waiting period would be a firearm, a proposition which is far from self-evident.
Then, and worse, even assuming that a firearm were the only way to defend oneself, purchasing a firearm is not the only way to obtain one. To cite an obvious counterexample, someone who already owns a firearm would not need to buy another for self-defense during the waiting period.
The same logic would apply to Rogers cell phone ban for teenagers. What about those who would be killed (in an accident or in an attack) because they couldn’t call for help? In the cell phone case, it’s not even possible to determine WHICH side of the trolley lever would cause more deaths.
Finally, it’s critical to acknowledge an essential difference. There is EVIDENCE supporting the claim that waiting periods save lives, but none for the self-defense claim. Facts matter.
JohnGreenberg I guess all I can do it go by the numbers I am talking about, not what article portrays
2018 numbers was as close as I could find from CDC on homicide rates.
estimated firearms purchases in the United States for 2018 is 13,100,000
From here I am going to break it down to a per week number
13,100,000 divided by 52 equals 251,923
Firearm homicides for 2018 was 14,542
divided by 52 is 280
17% of that is 48
so
327,000,000 people in the United States in 2018
251.923 people that would have to wait a week to purchase their weapons
280 Homicides in that week
48 is 17% of all the homicides committed in 2018 that may or may not have been stopped by a waiting period..
So you are saying 251,923 people, yes quarter of a million people should be affected by what up to 48 people did? (That is if each new gun purchase in that week resulted in that person only killing one person)
2) I was stating that the limitations were listed in D.C. vs Heller. You are saying it gives the Government a green light to make whatever limitation they want. “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” was put into the second amendment for a reason. I believe that reason is because the local government is trying to take a “God given Freedom” That the local government has no right to infringe upon.
3) I guess for every historian you can show me that has your translation I could find one that does not. So I will stop the back and forth on the third topic.
Donald Davis:
1) I’m not saying anything. The study discussed in the article and to which I linked is saying that if a waiting period applied to the entire country (which again, is NOT what we’re discussing here) AND IF there were no such waiting period in effect anywhere in the country (which is not the case either), then if there were 14,542 firearms homicides in 2018, that number would have been reduced by about 17% or about 2470 homicides if a national waiting period had been imposed that year.
But just to be perfectly clear, the law we’re discussing would apply ONLY to Vermont, so the number of firearms homicides is FAR lower than the number you cite. In addition, the reduction in the whole US would be lower than what I stated, because some localities already have waiting periods.
2) The passage we’re discussing in the Heller decision does NOT say that the listed limitations are the only ones that would pass Constitutional scrutiny. It says that the 2nd amendment right is NOT unlimited, and then provides some examples of limitations which it considers permissible. Since waiting periods are not on the list, the question is whether the Court would have permitted them or not. I haven’t researched the issue, but I don’t believe that Court has ruled on that question, and in any case, there are now new members.
In short, the Heller decision did NOT say that laws about waiting periods would be unconstitutional and no previous decision had ever done so either.
3) My comments are not based on a “translation.” I quoted the text of Article I, Section 8, which you can read yourself. It lays out the rules for militias, including surpress[ing] insurrections. Historians have nothing to do with it.
JohnGreenberg
1) The article is basing its findings on a national numbers. If you want to use the full years numbers find
13,100,000 guns purchased in 2018
2,470 homicides may have been prevented by a waiting period
You are saying 13,100,000 should be penalized because of what at most was 2,470 people did?
Only talking about Vermont. Ok that is 1.8 per 100,000 equals 11 and the closest you can get to 17% is 1.86 so 1 or 2.
So you would make every person in the state of Vermont have a waiting period because there is a chance you may prevent 1 homicide or if you round up 2?
2) Well I guess we have to wait for a ruling from the United States Supreme Court.
3) You are talking about the Constitution and what powers were given to legislators. Did you forget about the amendments to the constitution? You know the Bill of Rights which states the rights of the people?
the first ten amendments to the US Constitution, ratified in 1791 and guaranteeing such rights as the freedoms of speech, assembly, and worship.
While the government might have some ancillary interest in reducing the rate of suicide among the people, attempting to or believing it is within their authority to, remove from the hands of the people, every instrument with which one might, maybe, someday, under extremely extenuating circumstances, become the one in 500 thousand to take their life, is not only futile, it is the very definition of the Nanny State the constitutions prohibit. Not by any definition the reason the People of Vermont instituted a state government.
This is by no means a compelling public interest and plainly, not the state legislatures business, much less when they seek to burden the whole of the population for the alleged benefit of a few, who frankly, have the right to self determination to end their lives if they wish and when the same results could easily be achieved in other ways.
I have to wonder how often it is the ceaseless attempts at despotic tyranny of the legislature over the people & their private affairs that pushes people to end their lives, by whatever method or implement.
Frankly, if the legislature really gave a rats ass about preventing suicide, there are far bigger targets that would have a far greater effect and are even within their purview. i.e. Big Pharmas mind deranging poisons.
Donald Davis:
1) “You are saying 13,100,000 should be penalized because of what at most was 2,470 people did?” First, the 2470 people did nothing: they got shot and died.
Second, yes, I’m saying that asking 13+million people (many of whom already own one or more firearms) to delay a firearms purchase for a day or 2 is a reasonable tradeoff to save the lives of 2470 innocent people.
2) Right. We’ll wait.
3) I didn’t ignore the Bill of Rights or the 2nd Amendment. Indeed, I noted that the amendment begins by referring to “a well-regulated militia.” (I can’t resist adding that prior to the Heller decision, it was a commonplace of Constitutional interpretation that the amendment’s rights pertained ONLY to such a militia, NOT to individuals. But the Heller decision changed that, and it’s now the law of the land).
I then noted, as did Heller that ““we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assumption that “militia” means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment.” (p.23) This is basic to any textual interpretation: the contrary notion that the text might be using the same word in 2 very different ways leads to interpretative chaos.
That’s WHY I turned to Article I, which provides a much clearer notion of what the Constitution means by “militia.”
Specifically, in this instance, Article I makes it clear what it does NOT mean. The theory that the framers wanted to provide citizens with firearms to revolt from a Constitutionally elected government is clearly spurious.
JohnGreenberg
1) Thank God you are not making the laws. Imagine how many laws that could be made that might save 2,400 people. Last time I knew you were suppose to be free in the United States. Before you come back with “it does not take away your right it is just a waiting period” How many other things could a waiting period be applied? Probably millions.
2) Check
3) in 1939 In United States v. Miller, The Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that “[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.” The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of “civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.” It was upon this force that the states could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that “comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,” who, “when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”
“Guarantee of the Second Amendment” long before Heller
Donald Davis:
I think we’ve finished with 1 & 2.
3) What you quote from the Miller case confirms the points I made previously.
First, this: “[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.” The words “such forces” refer to militias, NOT to individuals. Only in the Heller case, for the first time, the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd amendment applies not just to militias (that’s been obvious since the amendment was ratified) BUT ALSO to individuals. That’s what I thought I said before.
Then this: “It was upon this force that the states could rely for defense and securing of the laws,” just as the text of the Constitution say, but NOT to support insurrections against Constitutionally elected government.
JohnGreenberg
Once independence had been declared in 1776, the American states turned immediately to the writing of state constitutions and state bills of rights. In Williamsburg, George Mason was the principal architect of Virginia’s Declaration of Rights. That document, which wove Lockean notions of natural rights with concrete protections against specific abuses, was the model for bills of rights in other states and, ultimately, for the federal Bill of Rights. (Mason’s declaration was also influential in the framing, in 1789, of France’s Declaration of Rights of Man and the Citizen).
The Virginia Declaration of Rights is a document drafted in 1776 to proclaim the inherent rights of men, including the right to reform or abolish “inadequate” government.
On 26 August 1789, the French National Constituent Assembly issued the Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen (Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen) which defined individual and collective rights at the time of the French Revolution. Some delegates at the Assembly had expressed their admiration for Magna Carta and other constitutional documents, such as the United States Declaration of Independence, but ultimately the Déclaration rejected appeals to ancient charters of liberties, based on the principle that the rights of man were natural, universal and inalienable.
JohnGreenberg
” (I can’t resist adding that prior to the Heller decision, it was a commonplace of Constitutional interpretation that the amendment’s rights pertained ONLY to such a militia, NOT to individuals. “
Yah, that’s what all the imbeciles with a third grader’s understanding of basic grammar would think.
“Specifically, in this instance, Article I makes it clear what it does NOT mean. The theory that the framers wanted to provide citizens with firearms to revolt from a Constitutionally elected government is clearly spurious.”
You might want to try expanding your reading a little more, or maybe a lot more. Maybe try per-constitution discussions and debates along with the Federalist Papers and Jefferson’s writings. Or maybe just try this one simple concept; the government didn’t write the constitution, the people did, as the charter that instituted the government & outlined how a government was going to be allowed to exist, by the consent of the people.
JohnGreenberg
” just as the text of the Constitution say, but NOT to support insurrections against Constitutionally elected government.”
You really have poor reading comprehension or just enjoy naive and flaccid arguments.
The states first became independent and sovereign states, later banding together to form the constitutional republic of the union, delegating limited powers to a federal government. Prior to this, they all had their own constitutions.
Here is Article 10 from the New Hampshire constitution.
[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
June 2, 1784
JohnGreenberg
Great debate. Going to stop at this point don’t like seeing this devolve to name calling. Thanks again.
Thanks Donald Drake. I’m happy to leave it here and call it a good dialogue.
“FreedomtoThink:” For the record, I have read both the Federalist Papers and a lot of the other materials you suggested I read. But thanks for the history lesson.
Second, despite all your verbiage, the facts here are pretty straightforward.
The US is a Constitutional republic in which “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
Specifically, given that you cite various state constitutions, if and when there is any conflict between the US Constitution and a state constitution, the former, not the latter is the “supreme law.”
The US Constitution provides for militias, as I have previously outlined. The provisions in Article I specifically designate one of the purposes of militias being to “suppress insurrections.” If you can reconcile that with the idea that the purpose of militias was to foment insurrections against duly elected governments, please feel free to do so.
Given that none of your verbiage does that, I stand by my comments, notwithstanding your insults about my intelligence, my knowledge of grammar, etc.
While we’re recommending reading, I suggest that you read Justice Stevens’ dissent in the Heller case, which was joined by 3 other justices, esp. pp 5-9. Then ask yourself, do you still suggest that 4 Supreme Court justices never made it past 3rd grade grammar?
JohnGreenberg
Are you calling me Donald Drake? I hope not I was upset that people were insulting you.
As I have stated before I still believe that the US Constitution clearly states the rights and requirements of the Government and and The amendments to the Constitution specifically in my comments The Bill of Rights is the Guaranteed Rights of the People. To me you seem to be totally ignoring the rights of the people and also ignoring James Madison who composed the first drafts of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights and earned the nickname “Father of the Constitution.” who also helped write the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
The Virginia Declaration of Rights is a document drafted in 1776 to proclaim the inherent rights of men, including the right to reform or abolish “inadequate” government.
Sorry, Donald. My bad. I mis-transcribed your name. The error is all mine.
I should stick to cutting and pasting.
Finally, as to the Virginia Declaration of Rights, it’s irrelevant here. We live under the US Constitution., which is the product of ALL of the framers, not just Madison.
I am interpreting what the document says, not what Madison or anyone else might have said elsewhere. The first rule of interpreting any text is to look at the text itself, and go outside of its “four wall” only when the text is unclear. That’s precisely what I’ve done here.
JohnGreenberg
Ok I guess I have to pull out the Article [IX] (Amendment 9 – Unenumerated Rights)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
When the U.S. Constitution was put to the states for ratification after being signed on September 17, 1787, the Anti-Federalists argued that a Bill of Rights should be added. One of the arguments the Federalists gave against the addition of a Bill of Rights, during the debates about ratification of the Constitution, was that a listing of rights could problematically enlarge the powers specified in Article One, Section 8 of the new Constitution by implication.
For example, in Federalist 84, Alexander Hamilton asked, “Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?”[4] Likewise, James Madison explained to Thomas Jefferson, “I conceive that in a certain degree … the rights in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal powers are granted”[5] by Article One, Section 8 of the Constitution.
Article One, Section 8 was never meant to give power of the Government over the power of the people.
Donald Davis.:
“Article One, Section 8 was never meant to give power of the Government over the power of the people.” Of course it was.
Article One enumerates the powers of Congress under the Constitution. If you don’t believe they’re meant to give “power of the Government” to govern the people, try refusing to pay taxes. The powers granted to Congress in this article ARE the limited powers of government and thus are precisely NOT what is meant by the 9th Amendment, which explicitly talks about “OTHERS retained by the people.” (Emphasis added)
The folks who wrote the Constitution understood the pitfalls of a government with no power. The Articles of Confederation had been ineffective and unworkable, largely because the government lacked powers desperately required to rule adequately.
The Constitution, like ANY legislative document, represents the work of all of those who brought it into being, not just the key drafters. And like any constitutionally enacted piece of legislation, it binds not just those who ratified or signed it, but ALL of us, including those who disagree with the law. That’s what the rule of law means.
An insurrection is nothing more or less than a band of disaffected people who decide that they alone, not the legislature duly elected by all voters, should define what is legitimate. Tolerating armed insurrection would lead to anarchy, so Article I explicitly allows Congress to raise a militia to suppress it.
There is no analogy between colonial America and Constitutional America. The colonies were ruled – like it or not – by a King and a Parliament in the home country, NOT by their own elected representatives. We choose our rulers and subject them to the same laws as apply to us.
Donald Davis:
As long as we’re at this, I’ll add one more point. I already noted that any legislative document, including the Constitution, is the work of many people, but the end product is the text itself.
One of the implications of this is that it is a fool’s errand to search for the meaning of the text by looking at what the authors had in mind, first and foremost because the ultimate text is often the result of compromise, meaning that no one party’s “intent” is enshrined there. More importantly, we can read the text; we have no way of reading people’s minds, especially those of folks who died centuries ago.
That’s why, when they’re trying to interpret the Constitution, the courts look first and foremost to what the text actually says. They look elsewhere only when the meaning of the text is obscure or ambiguous. The text is what the convention passed and the states ratified, not any one individual’s notions of what it says or does. The same applies to statutes.
Another cardinal rule of interpretation is to give ALL of the text meaning, not just one or more preferred parts.
Additionally, as shown here, the meaning of a given word is assumed to remain constant throughout the text: for example, you can’t define “militia” one way in Article I and then another in the 2nd Amendment just because it suits your ideological fancy.
Finally, you are certainly free to disagree with one or more provisions of the Constitution. I certainly do: (e.g. “3/5 of all other persons” Article I, Section 3 to name just one), but disputing the document’s principles is NOT the equivalent of disputing its meaning.
JohnGreenberg
House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
I will own that I never considered this provision so essential to the Federal Constitution, as to make it improper to ratify it, until such an amendment was added; at the same time, I always conceived, that in a certain form, and to a certain extent, such a provision was neither improper nor altogether useless. I am aware, that a great number of the most respectable friends to the Government, and champions for republican liberty, have thought such a provision, not only unnecessary, but even improper; nay, I believe some have gone so far as to think it even dangerous. Some policy has been made use of, perhaps, by gentlemen on both sides of the question: I acknowledge the ingenuity of those arguments which were drawn against the Constitution, by a comparison with the policy of Great Britain, in establishing a declaration of rights; but there is too great a difference in the case to warrant the comparison: therefore, the arguments drawn from that source were in a great measure inapplicable. In the declaration of rights which that country has established, the truth is, they have gone no farther than to raise a barrier against the power of the Crown; the power of the Legislature is left altogether indefinite. Although I know whenever the great rights, the trial by jury, freedom of the press, or liberty of conscience, come in question in that body, the invasion of them is resisted by able advocates, yet their Magna Charta does not contain any one provision for the security of those rights, respecting which the people of America are most alarmed. The freedom of the press and rights of conscience, those choicest privileges of the people, are unguarded in the British Constitution.
JohnGreenberg
Do you realize that Roe VS. Wade was decided because of the 9th and 14th amendment? It determined the State of Texas was infringing on an individual’s right. Same applies here. It does not give you the right to have a shoulder fired missile, hand grenades, bazooka or nuclear bomb. But it does protect the individual’s right to common weapons of the time (This does throughout history show that it includes weapons used by military, I would use standard infantry weapons type of rifle and pistol as an example) and not having to wait if they have been found to be legally able to own a weapon.
Donald A. Davis Jr. :
I didn’t respond to yesterday’s comment because frankly, I couldn’t figure out what you’re talking about after reading it carefully multiple times.
As to Roe, it has no relevance whatsoever here, but yes, I’ve read the decision.
The remainder of your comment fails to address anything I’ve said here, and goes to the general meaning of the 2nd amendment. So I’ll try to articulate my views succinctly.
The 2nd amendment clearly states that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” There’s no dispute about that. Because this is an enumerated right, the language of the 9th Amendment (“other rights”) has no relevance here.
There IS a dispute concerning what the text of the 2nd amendment means when it refers to “the right of the people.” Until a decade or 2 before the Heller decision, most (all?) scholars and courts believed that this phrase was subordinate to the opening phrase: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…..” The deeply divided Heller court (5-4) reversed that understanding, interpreting the right as pertaining to individuals, not just to members of a “well-regulated militia.” Justice Stevens wrote a powerful dissent, focusing largely on this point, and signed by the 3 other justices in the minority. For those who believe these issues are self-evident, I highly recommend his dissent.
Personally, I think Heller got it wrong and that its reasoning is specious, especially concerning the prefatory phrase, but my opinion doesn’t matter. The Supreme Court determines what the law is, so Heller is the law of the US unless or until it’s overruled.
The rest of this discussion hinges on precisely what the words “shall not be infringed” mean.
Donald A. Davis Jr. :
(Continuing previous comment). That question is unresolved. Still, thanks to Heller, we know that no one on the Supreme Court believes that 2nd amendment rights are absolute or unlimited. We’ve already discussed the relevant passage in comments here.
The Heller decision articulates a few restrictions that it considers compatible with the 2nd amendment, but makes no attempt to enumerate all of them (nor should it!).
The issue you keep addressing is what firearms are “in common use.” But that’s not the issue raised in this article. Instead, the article discusses whether or not a waiting period should be imposed on the purchase of firearms, and there is NO relationship between the idea of delaying a purchase and the precise nature of WHAT is being bought. Put differently, so we don’t have to keep coming back to this point, a waiting period law imposes NO restrictions on WHAT firearms can be offered for sale.
Instead, a waiting period restricts the TIMING of the transaction and it’s at least possible to interpret Heller as explicitly allowing for just that: “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on … laws impos¬ing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” The question, which I’m NOT answering here, is whether the Heller court would allow a law which imposes waiting period as a “condition and qualification,” or whether that is outside of the scope the Court had in mind. It’s not up to me to answer it.
The only way to answer THAT question is to pass a law and see what the courts have to say about the issue if someone challenges its constitutionality. Personally, that’s precisely the course of action I recommend.
JohnGreenberg
What I am saying is the amendments have the same weight as the constitution and politicians do not have the right to impose on the right of the people. Roe vs. Wade proves that the amendments protect the people’s rights since Texas made it a crime to get an abortion except under certain conditions. Saying it is different or not the same thing well they both deal with politician trying to make laws that affect free people. What I had posted last was showing that the amendments were added to protect the people and the framers added the amendments because of the wishes of the people. Also just because you do not want to accept what was decided in the supreme court does not change that it was decided in the supreme court. You can say they all didn’t agree but most did.
Thanks Donald.
Since I’ve answered these points previously, I see no point in repeating myself, except to say that I never for an instant believed that Constitutional amendments are anything other than an intrinsic part of the Constitution. And of course, that includes the 2nd amendment.
Thanks for the dialogue.